Future Schedules

[jays911]

The chat also told us that Kansas basically laughed in our face when we asked for a game. Duh. Could someone clue in Dirk this happens all the time please? I for one am sick of the CU needs to change ITS scheduling philosphy. As if when Creighton calls and a BCS type says no its some how our fault. How about an article that the BCSers need to change their philosphy? Where is the uproar about their crappy nonconf. schedules? Take a look at the BCSers with open slots and do some research on why its allowed for them to be worried about an easy win and making money. There are numerous teams that have not played ANY true road games they weren't forced to play for years. They also have BCS money but they can't schedule CU for money reasons. They want a name team. Creighton will be preseason top 20 and have a consensus All American. Yet Creighton who is dwarfed by BCSers in money is the one that should step it up and not worry about money and pick up the phone to be laughed at time and again which they do. Bullshit. How about Dirk call some of these teams and be as up front with his questions to them? He won't. Instead of Dirk telling Creighton what he thinks they sould do(not knowing they already have), how about him tellling some BCSers to man up and put us on their schedule? He won't. It gets old.

BB, my advice is to throw out today's fish wrap without reading. It will be better for your blood pressure.

[blueblood]

I emailed both Piv and Dirk

Predictable and lazy. Same old tired stories with little or no effort. How about a few questions and answers from a BCS coach? Have you two done any work at all to find out if any BCS coach would even play Creighton? Do you have any proof that any name BCS program would even schedule Creighton to a one and done? No. If you do then we have something but no one at the OWH has ever had that story. Without a smoking gun these stories are fairy tails.
Dirks tiers are fair but he avoids intangables in explaining why they are better programs. 6 of the top 8 are located in recruiting hotbeds while Creighton is in Omaha. 1 is Morman and that seals their deals. Look at the 3rd tier. Look at where they are located. You don't think that has a bearing?
In reality there is one program that used scheduling, some good players, and some luck to get where they are today. That is Gonzaga. I agree they are a good model. But they are the one and only team that has ever pulled it off. WSU went to Syracuse, what did that get them? The thing is until this year Creighton did not have the athletes(and might not now) to play the games you are saying they should. Look at what happened in Orlando. Now that we have them in a short window I have not heard one name Mac has turned down for anything. Name one. I am not defendign or apologizing for Creighton's schedule. It is what it is but until you get some concrete examples and quotes from these teams you want Creighton to play these stories are made up fairy tails. KU laughed when Creighton called and they are not alone.

[Trifecta]

I knew the fallout would be coming when I read both articles early this morning. I liked Piv's article, although I thought it seemed very shallow and didn't dig deeper into the BCS schools' side of the story. Like you said, why not ask them their opinions and get it in print that they won't play Creighton?

As for Dirk's article, man that was horrible. I usually like Dirk's stuff and defend him on this board but that was just terrible. I know the OWH is basically grooming him to become the next Shatel, but he should stick to analyzing the Husker's 4th string running back situation rather than talk about Jays basketball in the off-season. His articles are the Jays pretty decent during the season when he has something concrete to write about because it actually happening, but this article was just lazy and short-sighted.

Dirk bags on our schedule while praising Butler and Gonzaga's schedules. First of our, our conference is much tougher than the Horizon and WCC top to bottom. He acts like we play in the SWAC. Secondly, he makes our point for us: post-season success allows you to schedule the way Xavier and Gonzaga do. Going out and playing buy games won't mean jack if you don't make a run in the tournament. S16 and E8 runs are all that matter.

I'm not as opposed to buy games as much as Dana and Mac are, but I think it's all about timing. Dirk says we must strike while the iron is hot and we still have Dougie--I think this is the perfect time to convince big names to come HERE because they know we'll be a top 50 RPI team and it won't hurt them win or lose. You wrangle up the home-and-home series when you can. I feel like buy games is something you do when you are rebuilding. I think certain Jays' vintages (2005, 2008 come to mind) would benefit from one-off games to rebuild program momentum and get young players that experience of playing "big" games.

I'm not even opposed to 2-for-1, or neutral site games. The point is we need to start getting the "name" programs to come to Omaha, otherwise they'll think we're going to whore ourselves out for a pay check like Delaware St or Ark Pine-Bluff. Dirk needs to get beyond this belief we can simply pick up the phone and get a game.

[section221jay]

Can't say I disagree with Dirk all that much. The position that CU will not do a 1 and done because "you lose your bargaining chip" is kind of pointless. Kansas will NEVER come to Omaha to play Creighton. So there is nothing to negotiate.

I see mention that KU laughed at CU when they asked for "a game". Given McDermott's position of not doing 1 and dones am I safe to assume he proposed a home and home? If so, of course they laughed. The fact CU can get home and homes with Northwestern or Cal or Nebraska is not proof that that negotiating position (no 1 and dones) is an effective one.

If you want to schedule the REAL big boys you're going to have to do it on their terms. They get a dozen big games in conference every year. They can schedule each other in big OOC games...either neutral site or home and homes. They are never going to do a home and home with Creighton...so saying it's a bargaining chip is not true. They don't need it. I'm not saying do it often. Not saying do it every year. I'm saying though that it would not be a bad idea at all to do it once a year for the next couple years...these next two years are important if CU is going to break through into one of those other "tiers" that Dirk came up with. To get on the map for real CU is going to have to do more than win a ton of games against Indiana State, UAB, Alcon State etc. that the nation generally yawns at. CU needs to beat someone big. Taking a chance on a 1 and done has no downside. It doesn't hurt future scheduling. Doesn't hurt post season chances. And has a lot of upside.

[JayPharmAlum]

To "break through" you have to win in the NCAA tournament. End of story. I'd love to see Creighton play the best teams, but I don't actually believe that playing at Phog in November is likely going to impact a game in the second round of the NCAA tournament in March.

[T-bone]

Can't say I disagree with Dirk all that much. The position that CU will not do a 1 and done because "you lose your bargaining chip" is kind of pointless. Kansas will NEVER come to Omaha to play Creighton. So there is nothing to negotiate.

I see mention that KU laughed at CU when they asked for "a game". Given McDermott's position of not doing 1 and dones am I safe to assume he proposed a home and home? If so, of course they laughed. The fact CU can get home and homes with Northwestern or Cal or Nebraska is not proof that that negotiating position (no 1 and dones) is an effective one.

If you want to schedule the REAL big boys you're going to have to do it on their terms. They get a dozen big games in conference every year. They can schedule each other in big OOC games...either neutral site or home and homes. They are never going to do a home and home with Creighton...so saying it's a bargaining chip is not true. They don't need it. I'm not saying do it often. Not saying do it every year. I'm saying though that it would not be a bad idea at all to do it once a year for the next couple years...these next two years are important if CU is going to break through into one of those other "tiers" that Dirk came up with. To get on the map for real CU is going to have to do more than win a ton of games against Indiana State, UAB, Alcon State etc. that the nation generally yawns at. CU needs to beat someone big. Taking a chance on a 1 and done has no downside. It doesn't hurt future scheduling. Doesn't hurt post season chances. And has a lot of upside.

You assume the chip is with the KUs of the world. It is with the Cal and northwesterns

[blueblood]

I have asked and i see others ask the previous and current staffs all the time about scheduling. In all of my time in following it I have only heard one name of a school that asked for a one and done. It was after our first year in the Qwest. We were asked to do a one and done with either Auburn or Clemson. Dana told them no, that how about we buy them for a one and done. That was a long time ago. Since that date I am not aware of anyone asking us to do a one and done. I have heard that the teams Dirk wants us to play do not even want to do a one and done with us. No one has offerred. I know for a fact KU laughed about playing us in any form. That is why this one and done deal is idiotic to me and it should be to everyone else. No one is saying we are the Chicago Bulls and people are chicken to play us. There probably are a bunch of reasons for it but it just has not come up. No one has been turned down. Yet guys like Dirk keep throwing it out there. I have asked him to give me one name of one team that we have turned down. He can't or won't do it. Maybe he wants to get us riled up. Maybe he wants to sell papers. The truth of the matter is no one has asked Creighton for a one and done and been turned down. Idiotic.

[AttyAlum]

According to Basketball Travelers, Temple is now looking for a home and home series and has Nov. 9th available. I'd like to see us give them a call...

[WBR Tom]

Can't say I disagree with Dirk all that much. The position that CU will not do a 1 and done because "you lose your bargaining chip" is kind of pointless. Kansas will NEVER come to Omaha to play Creighton. So there is nothing to negotiate.

I see mention that KU laughed at CU when they asked for "a game". Given McDermott's position of not doing 1 and dones am I safe to assume he proposed a home and home? If so, of course they laughed. The fact CU can get home and homes with Northwestern or Cal or Nebraska is not proof that that negotiating position (no 1 and dones) is an effective one.

If you want to schedule the REAL big boys you're going to have to do it on their terms. They get a dozen big games in conference every year. They can schedule each other in big OOC games...either neutral site or home and homes. They are never going to do a home and home with Creighton...so saying it's a bargaining chip is not true. They don't need it. I'm not saying do it often. Not saying do it every year. I'm saying though that it would not be a bad idea at all to do it once a year for the next couple years...these next two years are important if CU is going to break through into one of those other "tiers" that Dirk came up with. To get on the map for real CU is going to have to do more than win a ton of games against Indiana State, UAB, Alcon State etc. that the nation generally yawns at. CU needs to beat someone big. Taking a chance on a 1 and done has no downside. It doesn't hurt future scheduling. Doesn't hurt post season chances. And has a lot of upside.

You assume the chip is with the KUs of the world. It is with the Cal and northwesterns

Right. Take the hypothetical buy game with Kansas, and home-and-home possibilities with Cal and Northwestern go bye-bye. That's the bargaining chip they're talking about. In any event, Kansas laughed in our face when we offered to come play them in a one-and-done in Lawrence, so all of this is a moot point...fun to discuss, but moot nonetheless.

[BoarCommaThe]

Polyfro, don't you mean mute, not moot?